"It's deja vu all over again!" -Yogi Berra

I feel like I am in a time warp with today's T&G.  We have an article about a city school failing to meet expectations and needing a grand restructuring, an article about the problems whenever our Parks Department redesigns a city park, and an article about a bar/restaurant closing on the corner of Commercial and Front Street. I'm feeling lazy today, and think I've written about our 'failing' schools and the problems with that particular location before. I think I might have a few posts about our Parks Department...let me check.

Here's what's different now.

-----

Regarding Claremont Academy, are we now forced to believe that the new Superintendent, the new principal (transferred from our best performing school), and the third 'new' academic outlook in twenty years will transform Claremont Academy and its students. Here's the money quote:

"I am beginning the process to restart Claremont Academy as a high performing 7-12heterogeneous/all honors school."

If it is heterogeneous and all honors, does that mean all the current students will remain, or will they have to reapply? Or will the school begin the process of weeding out the non-honors students to keep test scores high? The stark reality of education is that students aren't heterogeneous. They have different needs and different support structures at home. When you expect every student to be a college bound honors student, what happens a few years later when all the students aren't? Do you reassess the plan and call the school and its teachers a failure, or do you weed out the students who won't reach the goals?

Either way, what happens to the students who don't meet your standards? They will need to be educated somewhere in the City, and all you do is shuffle the students off to another school, which eventually will need to be reassessed because of the new lower test scores. I don't mean to sound like Rick Santorum at all. I'm just cynical that an 'all honors' school is the best idea.

We should be focused on what is best for all the students, not forgetting that they are individuals with different needs.

-----

Overtime Tap closing wasn't a shock to me. The space was too large, and the rent was too damn high! Each incarnation that rents the space out has to rent two different floors to ensure bathroom access. It's hard to make a restaurant profitable when you are paying for more square footage than you need because the bathrooms are in the basement with a function room that doesn't get used.

There will be another bar/restaurant in that space. Please split that space up, and build bathrooms on the first floor. Also, elevate the food to something memorable, and people will come. I'm not afraid of dining downtown, I'd just prefer great food.

-----

First of all, kudos to the T&G for the article title: "Field of foul balls on hold in Worcester." 

As for our Parks Department, no kudos for you! This is what happens when the public is shut out of the design process and their legitimate concerns are disregarded. Redesigning a park is a big process that should be done carefully. The recent trend is to completely reconfigure parks ignoring their historical usage, which hasn't caused any problems previously! Why? Who knows? The process is closed and mysterious to anyone who isn't the acting commissioner.

I don't know if the same firm redesigned Vernon Park and Beaver Brook. I do know that the original design of Beaver Brook didn't take into account the trajectory of foul balls or the possibility of home runs with the cloverleaf of proposed fields. It's almost like it is a redesign based upon cramming as much stuff into a small space without thinking of future consequences. Lastly, Parks and DPW have a history of not including (or notifying) the organizations that use the parks on a regular basis, so all practical experience isn't included in the design stages.

This is how we end up with broken windshields and windows, angry neighbors, and patchwork 'solutions' that are failures doomed to create more mistrust of our public agencies.

I hope the two headlines aren't related!

It's not our fault!

Next time I hope the person in charge of layout separates those two headlines.  It certainly doesn't help our image.

Waah!!!! Waah!!!! Waah!!!!

The more I hear from the Tea Party, the more I feel like they are acting like spoiled children when they don't get their way.

Example?  Today's T&G has an article announcing a protest of their own darling, Senator Scott Brown.

Why?  Because he voted with Democrats on legislation that (in theory) would offer taxpayers protection against a rapacious Wall Street culture.

This is supposed to be a good thing.  Regulation keeps you from getting screwed, Tea Partiers.  The last economic meltdown occurred because of a lack of regulation....so we should protest in favor of less regulation??????  The road to irrelevancy is paved with pages from Atlas Shrugged, Tea Partiers!

-----

Rational T&G comment of the week belongs to Ed:

"I've only taken two basic university classes in economics. I mostly read my medical journals for work and history for recreation. I do like to follow the news daily. There are a few things that are extremely obvious even to a non-expert like me! For example, that both the Reagan and Bush era tax cuts to the wealthy led to larger deficits and long term decline in growth. And, that deregulating any industry too much can lead to disasters, since the public is left unguarded against excess. What I fail to understand is this: do these conservative Congressional Republicans really believe that tax cuts for the wealthy work? Do they believe that more and more deregulation is in the interest of the nation's safety and prosperity? That is, have they missed the obvious evidence? Or, do they merely spout propaganda to mislead people so that they get the backing of wealthy donors?"

Community Development Corporations.

I love this question:

“The city is by no means abandoning the CDCs,” Ms. Vachon-Jackson said yesterday at the ceremony. “We'll be taking a look at hard data — vacancies, foreclosures, overcrowding — and form a policy based on that. Does it make sense for CDCs to build new properties, or help us with the foreclosure problem?”

 YES!!!  The City should be doing everything in its power to solve the foreclosure problem. 

Foreclosure = Urban Decay, and we have had way too much of that in Worcester in the past 30 years.  

Taxes.

Here's an interesting take from Eliot Spitzer.  Yes, that Eliot Spitzer.

Think about this April 15th...and again every November when you vote.

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument

This is why I read newspapers.

I know I pick on the Telegram & Gazette a lot.  I was impressed with these two articles in today's Sunday edition. 

http://www.telegram.com/article/20100207/NEWS/2070377/1116

http://www.telegram.com/article/20100207/NEWS/2070333/1002/NEWSREWIND

Housing Debate

22Barcelona a unique vision that could make Worcester an interesting place to live, and retain all those college students who live here for four years and then disappear. (Article on Boston.com)

The best part for me about this idea is the recognition that not everyone can buy a condo, house and car.  It creates a viable city where people live, work, eat, shop and play.  Worcester needs this sort of transformation, especially when it comes to open space and

What they say doesn't equal what they do.

I remember Scott Brown campaigning against last year's stimulus package.  He even had this quote in the paper today regarding President Obama's spending freeze:

"But anytime you can look at spending, I think that's one of the basic problems."

-----

Here is Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury) a fellow Massachusetts Republican and Scott Brown supporter, with Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray.  Why are they holding a press conference?  Federal stimulus money is going to be spent in Westboro and Marlboro to help reduce the costs of wastewater treatment plants.

Hopefully Representative Polito will let Senator Brown know about the stimulus money being spent in Massachusetts and how much she appreciates the help in her district.  Representative Polito emceed Scott Brown's victory party on Election Eve, so I assume they put their differences on the stimulus behind them.

-----

Here's a great breakdown on federal spending and our priorities.

Jeff Barnard for City Council!

I would vote for his tax plan.  It makes sense, and it rewards behavior that the City of Worcester desperately needs.

I've never met Jeff, but seeing that his blog is always full of well thought out ideas, he's probably too qualified and too smart to enter politics.  I can still write him in though, despite Bill Eddy's disapproval.

2010 is going the be the year of Dual Tax Rate and Affordable Housing debates.  I hope all involved remember that we are in the middle of a recession and budget crisis created by the same bad ideas.  New ideas like Jeff's make sense and might actually work!

Affordable Housing.

This past week has seen a huge uptick in stories regarding Affordable Housing.  I can't get into specifics like Bill Randell or Paul Collyer on the business side, but I can talk about the human side.  Jeremy Shulkin's article in Worcester Magazine lays out the main question for Worcester: Where do we go from here?

Mr. Shulkin states that an individual making less than $35,720 qualifies for affordable housing at a cap of $10,716 for rent or mortgage.  That equals $893 a month for the top end of the scale.  What happens at the bottom of the scale?  The minimum wage in Massachusetts is $8.00 per hour.  At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, the bottom end of the scale (in theory) is $16,640 with $4992 for rent or mortgage, which equals $416 a month.

Your prospects are limited enough at $893 a month for home or condo ownership, so the answer is an apartment, with roommates.  At $416 a month you end up living in a three decker somewhere in Worcester, filled to the brim with your friends and relatives, working multiple jobs.  More often than not you're scrambling for rent and a way to pay bills.  You end up moving more than you should, and you end up in some shady apartments where the landlord doesn't maintain the property, and certainly doesn't live in it with you.  Code enforcement and Housing Courts are backlogged with good and bad tenants and good and bad landlords.  There's little relief in sight, and the best most people caught in this loop can hope for is an escape for their children.

That's a pretty grim reality.  How do we fix it?  Not with quotes like this:

"More emphasis should be placed on attracting a higher class of people, who in turn would improve the commercial vitality of the City, and allow the City to leverage more private investement [sic]."

I don't want to pick a fight with whoever said that, but I do want to pick a fight with the mindset that creates a quote like that and gets a lot of heads nodding in agreement.  I don't deny the reality of Worcester's inner city neighborhoods.  I've lived here my whole life, and volunteered as a coach for over 20 years at a little league that draws from the Piedmont area.  There are a lot of reasons why it's bad and anyone who thinks that it is either society's fault or the individual's fault isn't going to solve the problem.

I understand that Mr. Randell wants to improve the City, and he makes excellent points on his blog on ways to improve our housing stock and increase ownership.  Worcester has been searching elsewhere for a 'higher class of people' for as long as I've been alive.  There's always been a call from City leadership for an Arts District, or an Outlet Mall, or Mixed Use Parcels, or a Regional Airport that will save Worcester and bring the classy people flocking to us with open wallets.  So far, none of those have worked.

Looking elsewhere for saviors is useless in the middle of a recession.  I don't care how many reports, slogans and studies the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce or the Research Bureau have issued.  Until we improve ourselves, the surrounding area is going to look at us with disdain (largely because we do the same thing to ourselves.)

Here's my plan: Education, Jobs, Renovation, Re-use and Ownership.  The first two are pretty obvious.  If we improve our educational system and opportunities, then our residents will be more desirable as a work force.  If we create better jobs in the area from the bottom up, our inner city will improve.  The third is more complex, and is exactly where the affordable housing debate gets murky because we haven't done the first two things consistently.  We haven't managed our rental market properly at all.  We need a vigilant Code Department that can respond to problems properties and get solutions.  We need to cut down on the rate of absentee landlords.  We need to encourage ownership and occupancy as much as we do investment (much like Joe O'Brien did personally). 

If we do those three things well, then the higher class of people will be the people already here.  And when we get these things right, the 'higher class of people' elsewhere will realize that Worcester is 'The Paris of the Eighties', and move here.

Then we'll complain about outsiders ruining our City.  But that's a story I'll leave to Rosalie or Diane.

Brand integrity

The concept of brand integrity boggles my mind, especially after reading this article.

"Let business do what it does best." - Mike O'Brien

In this article regarding snow removal, the final paragraph stood out, which proves that you always have to read every article through until the last word.

"Meanwhile, the city is facing a potential $600,000 liability because its budget-savings plan to purchase the streetlight system from National Grid has been delayed because of complex negotiations. This year’s municipal budget had assumed a savings of $1.2 million generated by the acquisition of the streetlight network."

 There's been a big push by Mike O'Brien to privatize the City's parking assets.  The Research Bureau wants to privatize pretty much everything.  Why would the City want to buy our streetlight system if private business is the most efficient way to deliver City services?

Coming Soon: another empty warehouse?

There's a new CVS opening up on the corner of Park Ave and May Street.  Should I take this article as an ominous sign?

I miss Cactus Pete's and their peanuts.

"I refuse to live in a country like this. And I'm not leaving." - Michael Moore

Here's a fantastic piece from Glenn Greenwald regarding the nation's attitude towards the financial bailout.  Beyond the ramblings of the Tea Party and the movies of Michael Moore (talk about two divergent paths!), there hasn't been much in the way of organized protest directed at Wall Street.

Has the toxic debate over health care and the war in Afghanistan blunted that anger?  Or are we really willing to be accomplices?

Breaking chains

I'm sure a lot of people will be wailing and gnashing their teeth about the demise of McFadden's on Front St.  I'm sure the propaganda wing of the Research Bureau will find a way to make McFadden's closing a perfect example of the inequities of the dual tax rate.

Personally, I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. I don't like seeing any business fail in Downtown, because I spend time there and don't find it as scary and menacing as the posters on the T&G message boards (with the exception of Gabe's comment...bravo!).

I won't shed a tear over the closing of a boring, unoriginal chain bar/restaurant with mediocre food and bad DJs, especially when there are so many better options within walking distance (even on a frigid winter night).

I'd much rather spend my time at The Dive Bar, Tammany Hall, Fiddler's Green, The Lucky Dog, 55 Pearl or the Armsby Abbey, all of which are located at the heart of the scary ghost town known as Downtown Worcester.  They all possess unique qualities that make them good places to visit and return, whether it is good food, great live music, or great beer.

Timothy McGourthy, the director of economic development for Worcester doesn't seem to understand that:

"“The owner said there are a few interested parties for that space,” he said. “That's a positive sign. This is one of those things that happen in a tough economy. But there are those that see this as an opportunity. The city will be supportive of whoever comes next.” Mr. McGourthy said McFadden's had a rich population of professional workers and students to draw from downtown, but was not able to remain with steady business through the day. He said that the delay of $564 million mixed-use CitySquare probably did not play a role in the company's decision to pull out. “They had a population in downtown that would go out to lunch, but they were never able to really capture it,” he said of McFadden's. “We want CitySquare, but we have to have something that brings people in. We will help whoever goes in there address the issue of being able to bridge the full day.”

 They didn't have steady business because they wasn't a reason for people to return! 

Two articles diverged on the Internet....

I've mentioned my ambivalent feelings about InCity Times before on this blog. (I'm not the only one.) Rosalie Tirella's latest articles best represent what a crapshoot that paper can be.

On the occasion of Joe O'Brien's inauguration as our symbolic weak mayor, Rosalie goes off on a rant that is unhinged at best. I'm amazed- she somehow manages to portray Joe as a racist good ol' boy based on events he had nothing to do with on a School Committee search he wasn't part of. Why does she retroactively accuse him of a crime he never committed....because he didn't sit down for an interview with her after she asked Barbara Haller to ask him for an interview.

Here she covers an issue that would likely be uncovered anywhere else. While it is covered in her usual angry, accusatory style, she points out how difficult it is to be poor and marginalized. That's the kind of stuff I want to read!

Blah, Blah, Blah

Individual Income Tax Rates:
1960:
20% ($0-$2,000 Head of Household, $0-$4,000 Married)
91% ($300,000+ Head of Household, $0-$400,00 Married)
2009:
10% ($0-$11,950 Head of Household, $0-$16,750 Married)
35% ($373,650+ Head of Household, $0-$373,650 Married)

Corporate Tax Rate:
1960:
30% ($0-$25,000)
52% ($25,001+)
2010:
Corporate Income Tax Rates
2010:
15% ($0-$50,000)
38% ($15,000,000-$18,333,333)

-----

I get it Scott. It's an easy message that pollsters tell you resonates with voters. But shouldn't we be talking about inflation, stagnation, globalization, down sizing, and shipping jobs overseas? That's the main difference between 1960 and 2010.

Then again, should I expect anything substantial from a candidate who said the following:

"I live every day like it's my last. Especially when JFK Jr. passed away and Princess Di. They're powerful, handsome, rich people, and they're dead. And they can't make a difference while I still can."

I don't drive a Caddy....yet.

Both Glenn Greenwald and Bob Herbert tackle taxing 'Cadillac health plans.' As it stands right now, I fall just under the threshold for the 40 percent tax, which means in the next few years I too can have a Cadillac plan!

The bad news? I have a bare bones, If- you-get-sick-it-will-cost-you-plan from Fallon. I'm single, don't have children and certainly don't make enough to warrant paying that sort of tax on my health benefits.

That's why I'm with Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn) and not with Senator Joe Lieberman, (I- Aetna).

More from the City Square website...

From the Worcester section:

"The city's entertainment venues include Foothills Theater"

Unfortunately, not anymore. Update the site much?

-----
From the residential section:

"CitySquare is restoring vibrancy to Downtown Worcester. This new, refined urban lifestyle makes Worcester a great place to work and live- at much more reasonable prices than Boston." -Roberta Schaefer, Executive Director, The Research Bureau.

Yes Roberta, Boston has an empty downtown mall also.

-----

The News Section was last updated on 04/29/09.